The basic principal at work here is that it's fine to use boobs if they are relevant to your product.
Perhaps you missed the fine distinction that the name of the package isn't using the word "boob" at all, not even as a root? It's like getting your knickers in a twist because people live in a town called "Scunthorpe" or talk about "cocktails".
that's just exploiting women's bodies to sell your presumably shit product.
Yeah, I'm sure there are tens of thousands of installations of the free software called "weboob" just because it has the string "boob" in the name. Those bastards! They're selling FOSS by using references to breasts!
I hope you never do a search for packages with the string "ass" or "cock" in them.
Er, really? "If it isn't objectionable in one context, then it automatically isn't objectionable in a completely different context"?
Are you sure?
If it isn't objectionable as a word in a context where it is a direct reference to a female erogenous zone, then it isn't objectionable when it isn't the word in a reference to something completely unrelated to female erogenous zones. Yes, I am sure.
I didn't say it was "automatically" not objectionable in all other contexts, I was pretty specific about the context. Don't be a boob and misquote or deliberately misinterpret me.
I bet you don't live in Scunthorpe, England, do you?
Weboob is objectionable? That's funny. One of the large breast cancer charities has a slogan along the lines of "we (heart) boobies". When they are the beneficiaries of one of the local college team's focus at games, they can find students to paint their chests with the letters "b", "o", "i", "e" and "s" (in sufficient quantities of each to spell the objectionable word. Granted, the students are idiots to begin with, but they're useful idiots for the charity).
If it isn't objectionable when it actually refers to mammary glands on well endowed non- or pre-mastectomy patients, then it isn't objectionable when it refers to the web software.
This is the same kind of stupidity that plagues things like the closed captioning on one specific TV channel -- MeTV -- for example. Watch with CC turned on and you'll see the actors making "xxxxtails", or playing badminton with "shuttlexxxxs". Or our lovely local newspaper with a blog that won't allow anyone to refer directly to a city councilor whose first name is "Richard" but always goes by his nickname.
Sheesh. People think the world hates us because we "meddle". Maybe it's because we make such big stupid stinks over such ridiculous first-world problems.
As long as the US has gerrymandering and no automatic voter registration,
Gerrymandering has nothing at all to do with the need to register to vote, and many states are automatically registering people. It's often called "motor-voter". Look it up.
The "US" will never have automatic voter registration because the US doesn't do the voter registration. It's a state function. That seems reasonable because there is no national ballot and no "national election". There is a nation-wide election day specified for states to hold their selection of Presidential/VP electors, and maybe that confuses you.
There are also the intangible bennies of such a large standing force.
There are also tangible ones. Like, if there is already a trained force when it is needed, the US doesn't need to reinstate the draft to meet needs. That's why the Guard and Reserve are a lot more than just "FEMA workers" as another comment claimed. The Guard is used for disaster recovery by the states because the states pay for their Guard troops, but they are also trained military personnel available when the need for that arises.
As one whose number in the lottery was "3", I think I can speak to the desire for reinstating the draft.
Now, if those who advocate cutting the military spending by half would be willing draftees if and when the need arises, I might believe them. Of course that's also where a lot of scientific spending comes from, so they'd also have to accept a lot of research programs being closed down...
But you do need to register to vote to elect in the politicians that you want to enact the laws you want changed.
Registering is free and easy. In many places you are automatically registered when you get a driver's license. Oh My God, such a burden.
And it seems to me that you need to be affiliated with a party.
Then you have just admitted that you are delusional. You need not be affiliated with any party, nor is there any test or restriction on saying you are affiliated with a party should you choose to do so. Nobody is going to shoot you or put you in prison if you register as a Republican when you are not one. In fact, every few years (when there is a presidential primary) it is common to see people who admit to being Democrats proudly announcing they've changed affiliation to Republican so they can "help" the Republicans pick their candidates for office in the primaries. When it comes to the general election, everyone -- Republican, Democrat, Independent, Communist, Libertarian, etc. -- gets the same ballot.
Try doing that with your Chinese Communist Party membership.
"Your political party affiliation is the party that you choose to associate with. You may be asked your party affiliation when you register to vote."
"YOU CHOOSE TO...". "YOU MAY BE ASKED...". Hardly the "need" you claim to be proving with those quotes.
To an outsider to both China and USA, I don't see the difference.
The difference between MUST and MAY is beyond your comprehension, then.
Sure, but the US wouldn't be, which is the end of the required consideration.
The US tried a policy of isolationism in the early 1900s. It didn't work out so well for anyone except the Kaiser and then the Fuhrer. If you think those nasty Ruskies are meddling in US affairs, keep in mind the German-American Bund whose goal was to keep the US out of the war.
To be robots.txt was always more about "don't waste your own resources indexing this" than any kind of privacy mechanism.
It was an instruction to automated data collectors not to index or access certain pages. Whether you tell them that because you are worried about their precious resources or because you care about your own, doesn't change the meaning.
If they want to ignore that, hey, it's their CPU and storage.
Webservers don't run on vacuum. They consume CPU resources. It's not just their CPU and storage that robots.txt was intended to protect.
I recall fondly one asshole indexer that was accessing my website, calling for a dynamically generated page (tide predictions) once every ten seconds. Each of those pages had a link to "tomorrow" and "yesterday" and other locations. The problem was that it took somewhat longer than ten seconds to generate the page. I noticed this indexer because I wondered why my webserver was at 100% CPU usage and had run out of httpd server processes.
Anything public at least multiple sites would index so they could be searched generally.
You are conflating indexing and searching. Not all indexing is to generate publicly available search engines. And even so, why is it better that your personal information that you object to Facebook having wind up being available on a dozen public search engines?
It would be fairly trivial to build a profile of when it's reasonable to expect someone to be home at every single house they've delivered to more than a few times.
Can you imagine the uproar if word of this "burglar database" got out? There are people bent out of shape because Facebook uses your IP address to target ads to your location. Think about a multinational megacorp keeping track of when you are home and when you are not...
So what, you ask? If the popular vote result and the electoral college vote result are wildly different, then people may choose to infer that the electoral college vote is no longer fair.
Yes, ignorant people can decide that anything they don't understand is unfair. That doesn't make it actually unfair, it just demonstrates they are ignorant. It also demonstrates the deliberate deception being used by those who keep whining about the mythical "popular vote" as if it really existed.
1. Yes, there is. It's the total number of votes. It has no legal bearing, but it does exist.
Not only does it not have any legal meaning, it has no practical meaning. Nobody campaigns based on mythical "popular vote" results. If they did, then the "popular vote" results would be different.
No, the only time "popular vote" comes up is when someone LOSES and tries to justify how good they did because a meaningless sum total of the individual votes of all the states proved they should have WON! It's like a college student who flunks a 100 question test because he got only 50 questions right claiming that if the test had only 50 questions he would have gotten an A+. Yeah, if the election was different, the result would be different. So what?
Again, the electoral college is designed to dampen the effects of Democracy in order to protect the power of a landed owning ruling class.
Saying it again doesn't make it true. The electoral college was designed because the founders knew that both the people AND THE STATES had a vested interest in selecting the executive officer of the UNITED STATES. You forget -- we are not one big group of a few hundred million people, we are a confederation of fifty states and a few protectorates. That's why you are confused into thinking you can just add up all the individual votes and think it means something.
2. Yes, it is.
No, I'm sorry, but 304 to 232 is winning with 57% of the vote. That's a 14% difference. Not "razor thin" at all. Any state-level election with that kind of result would be a "landslide" or "a mandate".
Trump won a lot of electoral votes,
Yes, a lot more than Hillary did. He won. Get over it.
If you're a Russian yourself
Yes, if you cannot win an argument using facts, then claim you're being trolled by the Russians and look, come see the repression inherent in the system.
And the rest of your post demonstrates exactly that kind of nonsense. It was funny when Monty Python did it, it's just sad when real people do it.
You can stop it.
Sorry, you don't get a free pass to post nonsense just because you tell me to stop correcting you or try to claim "Russian oppression."
If someone suicidal has managed to reach out, you don't want them hanging up because the respondent isn't trained to deal with them.
You have no idea what training 911 call center operators get, do you? They do a lot more than just dispatch cops. They are routinely credited with talking a panicky caller through dealing with an emergency situation. Dealing with suicide threats is just one of those emergency situations. (At the end of term I hear regular radio traffic dealing with such things.)
but if that's all they're going to do, may as well go directly to the experts.
That's not all they're going to do. If the caller needs medical attention they'll get it headed there. If the caller needs police action, they'll get that going, too. (E.g., Joe calls up saying he's suicidal and has a gun. Police go first to clear the area, then meds go in to deal with Joe.)
And, of course, centralizing emergency response in ONE number means you don't have to remember more than one. Plus you don't need to change an entire system built on the premise that the number being suggested is how you get help with phone service, not with suicides.
Imagine the fun and wasted time and money and interference with a true emergency when someone trying to find out why he was billed for something he doesn't think he should have been keeps calling the suicide hotline.
There is no "popular vote" for the US President. Please refer to the Constitution if you are confused about the process the US uses to elect the President. I'm sure there is a Wikipedia page about it if the old words are hard.
2. She lost by a razor thin margin.
"She won... she lost...". What?
Trump won the electoral college 304-227. That's not "razor thin".
I think Clinton could have won if she tried harder, but I don't think she'd have lost without Russian interference
Do you have evidence that any Russians voted illegally in the 2016 Presidential election? That would be a good argument for voter ID, you know.
You do realize that lots of non-US people tried to exert influence in US elections, don't you? And we've tried to influence other country's elections. It's a tempest in a teapot trying to justify what obviously couldn't happen but did.
ADS-B transponder broadcasts include very accurate position and altitude data.
That's nice. It doesn't mean it makes the vehicle sending the data visible. It doesn't even mean that the receiver displays "very accurate" position data for the sender. I fly in an ADS-B in equipped aircraft with a modern glass cockpit. It shows a small aircraft icon on a small map for a target. That's not enough to make the target visible. It provides a direction to look, but that's not always enough. Any pilot who flies in airspace that isn't completely empty knows that.
so if you are unable 'see' where a contact is located and how well endowed the pilot may or may not be,
I'm sorry you've never flown, because you'd know how invisible some aircraft can be, and especially a one foot diameter UAS. I don't know what the fuck you are yammering about "how well endowed the pilot may be", that has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all.
then you have an 'out' only transponder,
You are wrong again. It's hard to receive ADS-B data on an "out" only system. Impossible, even.
and likely, a cockpit full of ADS-B 'in' clutter devices to compensate.
Again, I don't know what the fuck you are yammering about with "clutter" devices. Is ADS-B "clutter" in YOUR cockpit, or are you even a pilot?
At the very least, they should be required to have ADS-B so they are visible to aircraft.
As a pilot, I can tell you that something having an ADS-B OUT doesn't make it visible. It only creates an alert that requires the pilot's attention to search the sky to see. UAS are much smaller than manned aircraft, and manned aircraft can be damned hard to see sometimes.
Distract the pilots from flying the airplane enough and that, by itself, will create problems.
By the end of 2019 all manned aircraft that fly in US airspace are to have these transponders.
You are wrong. Only aircraft that want to fly in certain kinds of airspace will be required to have them, and there is currently a worry that even the ones that need them most won't be able to get them installed in time.
There is a significant number of the GA fleet that will not have them, because the pilots/owners aren't interested in spending the money just in case they ever want to go someplace they don't want to go now.
If drones had these
Never happen. It adds a battery drain and huge pricetag. Also, if the entire "drone" (UAS) fleet had them, it would overload the system and valuable traffic information would be lost.
It's just a matter of time before any drone capable of interacting with the national airspace system will be required to have such a transponder.
I think that's called a tautology. The ADS-B would be the way a UAS "interacts" with the national airspace system. Yes, "a matter of time", where "time" is very long.
Along with that expect inspection and compliance requirements - just like for manned aircraft.
That is another reason it will not happen. There is already a problem of mis-programmed ADS-B units mis-identifying, imagine tens of thousands of hobbyists trying to program their units with their identification data.
Or outright copies of USA textbooks, repackaged into paperback and sold by someone who doesn't have the license to do so.
I remember in graduate school a Taiwanese fellow student had a good business going, bringing counterfeit copies of textbooks back when he'd visit home (or have them shipped by his family) and sell them at a good price that was still a good profit for him. He explained it to me as the copyright enforcement in Taiwan was non-existent. They were printed on cheap crap paper and had pathetic bindings, but they were really cheap.
Yeah but sending Comcast the middle finger is priceless.
The phrase you are looking for is "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face", I think.
Giving a company the finger even knowing it can provide service that doesn't:
1. Cost people who don't want Internet anything, and actually benefits the city through franchise fees,
2. Cost the city employee salaries, creating a benefits/retirement burden that is drowning a lot of cities,
3. Require the city to negotiate as a small-fry buyer of internet services and put the city in the position of continually updating and expanding their connection,
4. And doesn't put the city in the position of being able to monitor all citizen traffic if it so desires, removing even the trivial burden of getting a search warrant to get subscriber details should there be any investigation into illegal internet activity.
it shows the base cost of broadband internet is $5 bucks a month.
I would love to know where you come up with that number. This story doesn't show anything of the sort. Building system infrastructure is not a "per month" cost, it is a one-time affair. Being able to cut costs by using existing taxpayer-funded municipal employees to do the work doesn't prove the real costs of the project. And finally, a projected cost for a government project is rarely the full cost at completion.
Once the system is built you get into the per-month costs. Per-month includes salaries for staff -- including health care and retirement, which is creating a huge deficit in most Oregon cities just from existing employees as an example -- network connections, maintenance, local programming, etc. I don't have current numbers, but just ESPN/et.al used to be about $2.50/sub 30 years ago, and there is no doubt it has gone way up.
What this story tells us is that 160 people decided to spend $460,000 PLUS INTEREST over 15 years to build this system. If you assume a paltry 30% turnout, then that's about 540 adult residents. Another 500 kids, probably. About 1000 people. That's still only 250 subs. $460,000/250 is $1900 per drop. That's a hell of a lot more than $5.
Add in the interest. If they get 3%, then the interest alone will be $13,800 per year, or $55 per sub. THAT is about $5/month, but that's just the interest. The principal still needs to be paid back.
Three employees to deal with the admin and maintenance will cost about $100k each in salary and benefits, or $1200 per sub per year. That's $100/month.
Either the price is going to be really high for this, or it will be heavily subsidized by the taxpayers, even the ones who didn't want it. When 56% voted to do this, that was 56% of those who voted. Let's be generous as say it was a 50% turnout instead of just 35%. That means 72% of the people did not want the city to do this.
You pay just $100? Seems like a bargain when you add up the costs.
I would moderate this as flamebait if I had points. No, we do not deep fat fry hamburgers in the US. That's why "Flippy" isn't a burger-flipper at all. It's an updated automatic french fry machine that does other things.
This is not a new device. A friend of mine had a fry machine in his pinball parlor in the late 70's or early 80's. Put in your money, a dose of frozen fries falls into a basket, the basket lowers into hot oil for a fixed amount of time, comes out, dosed with salt, dumped into a cup, and dropped into the output area. Full automated. No AI at all.
SMS Text messages are from Wireless phone to Wireless phone.
Some of them are. Some of them are not. The vast majority of the SMS messages I get are from an email source.
The origin of a text message is always a phone number, not an E-mail address.
This is patently false. Clearly you don't understand the system as a whole.
Now, you may claim that technically, there may be a short number (not a phone number) assigned to each message from an email source, but that number is carrier-generated and meaningless as far as validation of the source is concerned. For example, T-Mobile uses the range 3000-3999, I believe, to tag each SMS from email, which was intended to allow SMS replies to go back to the email sender. This leaves the question of how T-Mobile would possibly validate the email address of the sender, and until that is solved, your proposed solution is incomplete, to say the least.
Stop being a douchebag and labeling people you don't like as 'shills' and 'bots',
I've done that once, here, because the right of political parties to make harassing phone calls is NOT "protected speech", no matter how straight you think he's setting the record. Trying to claim that politicians get a special pass on harassment because it is Public Knowledge is, well, acting like a shill.
There's more important things than hard cash. But silly brownie points or having more ornaments than the average Christmas tree are not among them.
In an environment where everyone has limited options in dress and accessorizing, medals and badges are both a visible sign of personal accomplishment and recognition for those accomplishments. It's also an environment where you don't get raises based on performance, and there are time-in-grade requirements before you can be promoted again which is what gives you the pay raise.
You can poopoo the value of such things, but that just shows you don't understand the environment or the people who live in it.
Slashdot Mirror
The double-o construct in this short follows a long engineering tradition of shortening "out of" or "outside of" as "oo".
Or "object oriented", as in "programming". God, I hope there is never an OOP package that has a 'p' in the wrong place.
This is why we can't have nice things like Neural Information Processing Systems. Gutter brains like Elon Musk...
The basic principal at work here is that it's fine to use boobs if they are relevant to your product.
Perhaps you missed the fine distinction that the name of the package isn't using the word "boob" at all, not even as a root? It's like getting your knickers in a twist because people live in a town called "Scunthorpe" or talk about "cocktails".
that's just exploiting women's bodies to sell your presumably shit product.
Yeah, I'm sure there are tens of thousands of installations of the free software called "weboob" just because it has the string "boob" in the name. Those bastards! They're selling FOSS by using references to breasts!
I hope you never do a search for packages with the string "ass" or "cock" in them.
Er, really? "If it isn't objectionable in one context, then it automatically isn't objectionable in a completely different context"? Are you sure?
If it isn't objectionable as a word in a context where it is a direct reference to a female erogenous zone, then it isn't objectionable when it isn't the word in a reference to something completely unrelated to female erogenous zones. Yes, I am sure.
I didn't say it was "automatically" not objectionable in all other contexts, I was pretty specific about the context. Don't be a boob and misquote or deliberately misinterpret me.
I bet you don't live in Scunthorpe, England, do you?
If it isn't objectionable when it actually refers to mammary glands on well endowed non- or pre-mastectomy patients, then it isn't objectionable when it refers to the web software.
This is the same kind of stupidity that plagues things like the closed captioning on one specific TV channel -- MeTV -- for example. Watch with CC turned on and you'll see the actors making "xxxxtails", or playing badminton with "shuttlexxxxs". Or our lovely local newspaper with a blog that won't allow anyone to refer directly to a city councilor whose first name is "Richard" but always goes by his nickname.
Sheesh. People think the world hates us because we "meddle". Maybe it's because we make such big stupid stinks over such ridiculous first-world problems.
Registering is free and easy.
And totally voter supressive.
Yeah. Really. Another delusional speaks up.
As long as the US has gerrymandering and no automatic voter registration,
Gerrymandering has nothing at all to do with the need to register to vote, and many states are automatically registering people. It's often called "motor-voter". Look it up.
The "US" will never have automatic voter registration because the US doesn't do the voter registration. It's a state function. That seems reasonable because there is no national ballot and no "national election". There is a nation-wide election day specified for states to hold their selection of Presidential/VP electors, and maybe that confuses you.
There are also the intangible bennies of such a large standing force.
There are also tangible ones. Like, if there is already a trained force when it is needed, the US doesn't need to reinstate the draft to meet needs. That's why the Guard and Reserve are a lot more than just "FEMA workers" as another comment claimed. The Guard is used for disaster recovery by the states because the states pay for their Guard troops, but they are also trained military personnel available when the need for that arises.
As one whose number in the lottery was "3", I think I can speak to the desire for reinstating the draft.
Now, if those who advocate cutting the military spending by half would be willing draftees if and when the need arises, I might believe them. Of course that's also where a lot of scientific spending comes from, so they'd also have to accept a lot of research programs being closed down...
But you do need to register to vote to elect in the politicians that you want to enact the laws you want changed.
Registering is free and easy. In many places you are automatically registered when you get a driver's license. Oh My God, such a burden.
And it seems to me that you need to be affiliated with a party.
Then you have just admitted that you are delusional. You need not be affiliated with any party, nor is there any test or restriction on saying you are affiliated with a party should you choose to do so. Nobody is going to shoot you or put you in prison if you register as a Republican when you are not one. In fact, every few years (when there is a presidential primary) it is common to see people who admit to being Democrats proudly announcing they've changed affiliation to Republican so they can "help" the Republicans pick their candidates for office in the primaries. When it comes to the general election, everyone -- Republican, Democrat, Independent, Communist, Libertarian, etc. -- gets the same ballot.
Try doing that with your Chinese Communist Party membership.
"Your political party affiliation is the party that you choose to associate with. You may be asked your party affiliation when you register to vote."
"YOU CHOOSE TO ...". "YOU MAY BE ASKED ...". Hardly the "need" you claim to be proving with those quotes.
To an outsider to both China and USA, I don't see the difference.
The difference between MUST and MAY is beyond your comprehension, then.
Sure, but the US wouldn't be, which is the end of the required consideration.
The US tried a policy of isolationism in the early 1900s. It didn't work out so well for anyone except the Kaiser and then the Fuhrer. If you think those nasty Ruskies are meddling in US affairs, keep in mind the German-American Bund whose goal was to keep the US out of the war.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
To be robots.txt was always more about "don't waste your own resources indexing this" than any kind of privacy mechanism.
It was an instruction to automated data collectors not to index or access certain pages. Whether you tell them that because you are worried about their precious resources or because you care about your own, doesn't change the meaning.
If they want to ignore that, hey, it's their CPU and storage.
Webservers don't run on vacuum. They consume CPU resources. It's not just their CPU and storage that robots.txt was intended to protect.
I recall fondly one asshole indexer that was accessing my website, calling for a dynamically generated page (tide predictions) once every ten seconds. Each of those pages had a link to "tomorrow" and "yesterday" and other locations. The problem was that it took somewhat longer than ten seconds to generate the page. I noticed this indexer because I wondered why my webserver was at 100% CPU usage and had run out of httpd server processes.
Anything public at least multiple sites would index so they could be searched generally.
You are conflating indexing and searching. Not all indexing is to generate publicly available search engines. And even so, why is it better that your personal information that you object to Facebook having wind up being available on a dozen public search engines?
It would be fairly trivial to build a profile of when it's reasonable to expect someone to be home at every single house they've delivered to more than a few times.
Can you imagine the uproar if word of this "burglar database" got out? There are people bent out of shape because Facebook uses your IP address to target ads to your location. Think about a multinational megacorp keeping track of when you are home and when you are not ...
So what, you ask? If the popular vote result and the electoral college vote result are wildly different, then people may choose to infer that the electoral college vote is no longer fair.
Yes, ignorant people can decide that anything they don't understand is unfair. That doesn't make it actually unfair, it just demonstrates they are ignorant. It also demonstrates the deliberate deception being used by those who keep whining about the mythical "popular vote" as if it really existed.
1. Yes, there is. It's the total number of votes. It has no legal bearing, but it does exist.
Not only does it not have any legal meaning, it has no practical meaning. Nobody campaigns based on mythical "popular vote" results. If they did, then the "popular vote" results would be different.
No, the only time "popular vote" comes up is when someone LOSES and tries to justify how good they did because a meaningless sum total of the individual votes of all the states proved they should have WON! It's like a college student who flunks a 100 question test because he got only 50 questions right claiming that if the test had only 50 questions he would have gotten an A+. Yeah, if the election was different, the result would be different. So what?
Again, the electoral college is designed to dampen the effects of Democracy in order to protect the power of a landed owning ruling class.
Saying it again doesn't make it true. The electoral college was designed because the founders knew that both the people AND THE STATES had a vested interest in selecting the executive officer of the UNITED STATES. You forget -- we are not one big group of a few hundred million people, we are a confederation of fifty states and a few protectorates. That's why you are confused into thinking you can just add up all the individual votes and think it means something.
2. Yes, it is.
No, I'm sorry, but 304 to 232 is winning with 57% of the vote. That's a 14% difference. Not "razor thin" at all. Any state-level election with that kind of result would be a "landslide" or "a mandate".
Trump won a lot of electoral votes,
Yes, a lot more than Hillary did. He won. Get over it.
If you're a Russian yourself
Yes, if you cannot win an argument using facts, then claim you're being trolled by the Russians and look, come see the repression inherent in the system.
And the rest of your post demonstrates exactly that kind of nonsense. It was funny when Monty Python did it, it's just sad when real people do it.
You can stop it.
Sorry, you don't get a free pass to post nonsense just because you tell me to stop correcting you or try to claim "Russian oppression."
If someone suicidal has managed to reach out, you don't want them hanging up because the respondent isn't trained to deal with them.
You have no idea what training 911 call center operators get, do you? They do a lot more than just dispatch cops. They are routinely credited with talking a panicky caller through dealing with an emergency situation. Dealing with suicide threats is just one of those emergency situations. (At the end of term I hear regular radio traffic dealing with such things.)
but if that's all they're going to do, may as well go directly to the experts.
That's not all they're going to do. If the caller needs medical attention they'll get it headed there. If the caller needs police action, they'll get that going, too. (E.g., Joe calls up saying he's suicidal and has a gun. Police go first to clear the area, then meds go in to deal with Joe.)
And, of course, centralizing emergency response in ONE number means you don't have to remember more than one. Plus you don't need to change an entire system built on the premise that the number being suggested is how you get help with phone service, not with suicides.
Imagine the fun and wasted time and money and interference with a true emergency when someone trying to find out why he was billed for something he doesn't think he should have been keeps calling the suicide hotline.
1. She still won the popular vote.
There is no "popular vote" for the US President. Please refer to the Constitution if you are confused about the process the US uses to elect the President. I'm sure there is a Wikipedia page about it if the old words are hard.
2. She lost by a razor thin margin.
"She won ... she lost ...". What?
Trump won the electoral college 304-227. That's not "razor thin".
I think Clinton could have won if she tried harder, but I don't think she'd have lost without Russian interference
Do you have evidence that any Russians voted illegally in the 2016 Presidential election? That would be a good argument for voter ID, you know.
You do realize that lots of non-US people tried to exert influence in US elections, don't you? And we've tried to influence other country's elections. It's a tempest in a teapot trying to justify what obviously couldn't happen but did.
ADS-B transponder broadcasts include very accurate position and altitude data.
That's nice. It doesn't mean it makes the vehicle sending the data visible. It doesn't even mean that the receiver displays "very accurate" position data for the sender. I fly in an ADS-B in equipped aircraft with a modern glass cockpit. It shows a small aircraft icon on a small map for a target. That's not enough to make the target visible. It provides a direction to look, but that's not always enough. Any pilot who flies in airspace that isn't completely empty knows that.
so if you are unable 'see' where a contact is located and how well endowed the pilot may or may not be,
I'm sorry you've never flown, because you'd know how invisible some aircraft can be, and especially a one foot diameter UAS. I don't know what the fuck you are yammering about "how well endowed the pilot may be", that has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all.
then you have an 'out' only transponder,
You are wrong again. It's hard to receive ADS-B data on an "out" only system. Impossible, even.
and likely, a cockpit full of ADS-B 'in' clutter devices to compensate.
Again, I don't know what the fuck you are yammering about with "clutter" devices. Is ADS-B "clutter" in YOUR cockpit, or are you even a pilot?
There are surgical treatments that can help.
Now I know you are a troll. Bye.
At the very least, they should be required to have ADS-B so they are visible to aircraft.
As a pilot, I can tell you that something having an ADS-B OUT doesn't make it visible. It only creates an alert that requires the pilot's attention to search the sky to see. UAS are much smaller than manned aircraft, and manned aircraft can be damned hard to see sometimes.
Distract the pilots from flying the airplane enough and that, by itself, will create problems.
The ADS-B mandate for all aircraft, including (eventually) drones is not harsh.
There isn't an ADS-B mandate for all manned aircraft, what makes you think there'll be one for all UAS?
By the end of 2019 all manned aircraft that fly in US airspace are to have these transponders.
You are wrong. Only aircraft that want to fly in certain kinds of airspace will be required to have them, and there is currently a worry that even the ones that need them most won't be able to get them installed in time.
There is a significant number of the GA fleet that will not have them, because the pilots/owners aren't interested in spending the money just in case they ever want to go someplace they don't want to go now.
If drones had these
Never happen. It adds a battery drain and huge pricetag. Also, if the entire "drone" (UAS) fleet had them, it would overload the system and valuable traffic information would be lost.
It's just a matter of time before any drone capable of interacting with the national airspace system will be required to have such a transponder.
I think that's called a tautology. The ADS-B would be the way a UAS "interacts" with the national airspace system. Yes, "a matter of time", where "time" is very long.
Along with that expect inspection and compliance requirements - just like for manned aircraft.
That is another reason it will not happen. There is already a problem of mis-programmed ADS-B units mis-identifying, imagine tens of thousands of hobbyists trying to program their units with their identification data.
and maybe a certificate of training of some kind.
You mean like a Part 107 license?
Or outright copies of USA textbooks, repackaged into paperback and sold by someone who doesn't have the license to do so.
I remember in graduate school a Taiwanese fellow student had a good business going, bringing counterfeit copies of textbooks back when he'd visit home (or have them shipped by his family) and sell them at a good price that was still a good profit for him. He explained it to me as the copyright enforcement in Taiwan was non-existent. They were printed on cheap crap paper and had pathetic bindings, but they were really cheap.
Yeah but sending Comcast the middle finger is priceless.
The phrase you are looking for is "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face", I think.
Giving a company the finger even knowing it can provide service that doesn't:
1. Cost people who don't want Internet anything, and actually benefits the city through franchise fees,
2. Cost the city employee salaries, creating a benefits/retirement burden that is drowning a lot of cities,
3. Require the city to negotiate as a small-fry buyer of internet services and put the city in the position of continually updating and expanding their connection,
4. And doesn't put the city in the position of being able to monitor all citizen traffic if it so desires, removing even the trivial burden of getting a search warrant to get subscriber details should there be any investigation into illegal internet activity.
seems silly to me.
it shows the base cost of broadband internet is $5 bucks a month.
I would love to know where you come up with that number. This story doesn't show anything of the sort. Building system infrastructure is not a "per month" cost, it is a one-time affair. Being able to cut costs by using existing taxpayer-funded municipal employees to do the work doesn't prove the real costs of the project. And finally, a projected cost for a government project is rarely the full cost at completion.
Once the system is built you get into the per-month costs. Per-month includes salaries for staff -- including health care and retirement, which is creating a huge deficit in most Oregon cities just from existing employees as an example -- network connections, maintenance, local programming, etc. I don't have current numbers, but just ESPN/et.al used to be about $2.50/sub 30 years ago, and there is no doubt it has gone way up.
What this story tells us is that 160 people decided to spend $460,000 PLUS INTEREST over 15 years to build this system. If you assume a paltry 30% turnout, then that's about 540 adult residents. Another 500 kids, probably. About 1000 people. That's still only 250 subs. $460,000/250 is $1900 per drop. That's a hell of a lot more than $5.
Add in the interest. If they get 3%, then the interest alone will be $13,800 per year, or $55 per sub. THAT is about $5/month, but that's just the interest. The principal still needs to be paid back.
Three employees to deal with the admin and maintenance will cost about $100k each in salary and benefits, or $1200 per sub per year. That's $100/month.
Either the price is going to be really high for this, or it will be heavily subsidized by the taxpayers, even the ones who didn't want it. When 56% voted to do this, that was 56% of those who voted. Let's be generous as say it was a 50% turnout instead of just 35%. That means 72% of the people did not want the city to do this.
You pay just $100? Seems like a bargain when you add up the costs.
This is not a new device. A friend of mine had a fry machine in his pinball parlor in the late 70's or early 80's. Put in your money, a dose of frozen fries falls into a basket, the basket lowers into hot oil for a fixed amount of time, comes out, dosed with salt, dumped into a cup, and dropped into the output area. Full automated. No AI at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
SMS Text messages are from Wireless phone to Wireless phone.
Some of them are. Some of them are not. The vast majority of the SMS messages I get are from an email source.
The origin of a text message is always a phone number, not an E-mail address.
This is patently false. Clearly you don't understand the system as a whole.
Now, you may claim that technically, there may be a short number (not a phone number) assigned to each message from an email source, but that number is carrier-generated and meaningless as far as validation of the source is concerned. For example, T-Mobile uses the range 3000-3999, I believe, to tag each SMS from email, which was intended to allow SMS replies to go back to the email sender. This leaves the question of how T-Mobile would possibly validate the email address of the sender, and until that is solved, your proposed solution is incomplete, to say the least.
Stop being a douchebag and labeling people you don't like as 'shills' and 'bots',
I've done that once, here, because the right of political parties to make harassing phone calls is NOT "protected speech", no matter how straight you think he's setting the record. Trying to claim that politicians get a special pass on harassment because it is Public Knowledge is, well, acting like a shill.
There's more important things than hard cash. But silly brownie points or having more ornaments than the average Christmas tree are not among them.
In an environment where everyone has limited options in dress and accessorizing, medals and badges are both a visible sign of personal accomplishment and recognition for those accomplishments. It's also an environment where you don't get raises based on performance, and there are time-in-grade requirements before you can be promoted again which is what gives you the pay raise.
You can poopoo the value of such things, but that just shows you don't understand the environment or the people who live in it.